Re: Slashdot Article - Why Won't Macromedia Release 64-bit Flash?
couldn't you apt-build an i386 version of it? Or is the source not
public? In any case, wouldn't it be possible to re-label the i386
version amd64, since the processor will run it natively anyway? I say
that because in my experience the only way to change the distro's
architecture identification is to reinstall - not a good idea if you
still want to use amd64 stuff.
On 10/19/05, Jeffrey Hahn <jmhahn@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be of interest to those on this list that there is a slashdot thread
> <http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/19/1959200>
> started this afternoon on the topic of Macromedia's refusal to develop a
> solution for Flash on 64-bit Linux. Since it is simply an Ask Slashdot,
> there is no news per se, but the comments may be interesting nonetheless.
of great interest. I've been denied lots of web content b/c flash
won't install, so I've had to resort to my laptop.
> For those of you who do not feel like browsing through the comments, I would
> like to humbly point out mine <
> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165807&cid=13830331>
> in particular. In it I reference a generic letter which I have created to
> send to websites who require Flash, which, of course, those of us running in
> a pure64 environment cannot use. At the risk of being redundant to those who
> may have already seen it, I'd like to provide a link to that letter
> <http://arctangent.net/~formatc/amd64flash.html> for those
> of you interested in having something on-hand to send to the websites that
> choose to stop you in your Flash-less tracks.
The way I read you, you're campaigning to remove all flash content
from every web site - not going to happen in a million years. You'd
be better off campaigning for a amd64 version. Plus Flash adds too
much content to the web to safely dispose of - many sites would be
rendered much less interesting... though just think of all the
bandwidth we'd save....
> It may never prove to be a large enough campaign to solicit a turnabout
> from any webmasters, but it could at least make the issue heard.
Nay, I think what we need to do is find a way to use the existing i386
version on our amd64 machines, since all amd64 arch chips can run i386
with no penalty (no wonder why I'm borderline on blind loyalty to AMD
- whenever I buy AMD, I always get far more than my money's worth!)
I don't know if it's possible, but it's something to think about.
--
=== GCB v3.1 ===
GCS d-(+) s+:- a? C+(++++) UL+++(++++) P L++(+++)
E- W+(+++) N++ w--- M>++ PS-- PE Y+ PGP- t++(+++) 5?
X? R !tv>-- b++>++++ DI+++>++++ D-- G !e h(*) !r x---
=== EGCB v3.1 ===
Reply to: